Orland Park officials have delayed taking action on a measure that would do away with a years-old ban on video gambling in the village.

Business owners and residents packed the Village Hall meeting room Monday where the Village Board discussed, then tabled, a vote on an ordinance that would limit video gambling to bars and restaurants that have a Class A liquor license.

Last month, in two advisory referendum questions, voters supported keeping the current ban intact and rejected a proposal to allow video gambling with restrictions.

The ordinance, as written, incorporates many of the same limits that were part of a previous draft measure, including restricting licenses to Class A license holders that have been in business for 18 consecutive months — meant as an obstacle to video gambling cafes that offer limited food and beverage menus — and requiring video monitoring of gambling activities and imposing hefty license fees on businesses.

During the first year the ordinance is in effect, the village proposes to cap the number of gambling licenses issued at 20, then review on a case-by-case basis, according to the ordinance.

There are more than 60 holders of Class A licenses in Orland Park, and some trustees said they wanted to see a written legal opinion as to whether such a cap would successfully withstand a legal challenge. The opinion was to have been ready for trustees by Monday’s meeting but was delayed.

Before the first gambling machines went live in the state in September 2012, Orland Park officials had, in December 2009, opted out of the state law, essentially barring the games in the village.

Along with Orland Park, video gambling is barred locally in Frankfort, Palos Heights, Palos Park and South Holland, and the games are not permitted in unincorporated areas of Cook and Will counties. Tinley Park was among the communities that initially opted out of the law but reversed course about four years ago.

Orland Park officials decided last year to revisit the issue after some business owners said that not having the machines put them at a competitive disadvantage. Officials also see taxes raised from gambling as an additional revenue source.

The village held a series of public forums on the issues, with comments fairly evenly divided between those supporting keeping the ban in place and those arguing it is hurting owners of small businesses.

“Put us on an even playing field,” he said of Orland Park businesses, adding that allowing video gambling “would be a plus for the community.”

Tim McCarthy, owner of Paddy B's Pub, who has spoken on behalf of business owners seeking approval for video gambling, said businesses, if allowed video gambling, wouldn’t do anything to “hurt the character or the name of Orland Park.

“Free us,” he asked the board. “Give us the opportunity to compete.”

Residents who spoke, however, said board members need to abide by the results of the recent referendum questions.

One question, put on the ballot by village trustees, asked whether the village should allow restaurants and other businesses that have a Class A liquor license and have been in business for at least 18 consecutive months to offer video gambling. Forty-nine percent of voters casting ballots favored the move while 51 percent were opposed

A second question, which reached the ballot through a citizen petition drive, asked whether video gambling should continue to be prohibited within village limits. On that question, 53 percent of voters were supportive of keeping the ban in place while 47 percent were opposed.

A little more than 12,600 ballots were cast on the matters, with 26 percent of registered voters participating, according to the Cook County clerk’s office.

Noting the slim margin of difference in votes on both questions, Trustee Michael Carroll told the standing-room-only crowd that there “surely was not a decisive vote or mandate of any proportion” either favoring or opposing video gambling.

Citing the apparent impact online retail sales are having on village sales taxes, he said that “all reasonable sources of revenue must be explored by this board.”

Trustee Patricia Gira said she believed the 20-license cap would create a “special elite” group of Class A liquor license holders, resulting in an “unlevel playing field” of businesses that have or lack video gambling.

Trustee Carole Ruzich said that, lacking the written legal opinion about the cap, “we don’t know that we can contain” video gambling and that she wasn’t prepared to vote on the ordinance.

Trustee James Dodge, who suggested the board table action on the ordinance, which won approval on a 4 to 3 vote, said he and other trustees were proceeding cautiously and noted the proposed ordinance has restrictions.

“None of us (trustees) want to screw up this town,” he said. “Nobody wants a proliferation (of video gambling).”

According to the proposed ordinance, gambling terminals would be restricted to an area set off from where other customers gather or eat, and lights and sounds produced by the machines would need to be limited so not to be seen or heard by people outside the gambling area. Businesses would initially pay license fees totaling $2,500, plus $1,000 annually for each gambling terminal. State law restricts businesses to no more than five machines.